Storks Deliver Babies (p= 0.008)
researchgate.net
researchgate.net
Does researchgate provide any service other than showing up first in searches for papers then obfuscating the real source of papers and making me prove I'm human every time by clicking on pictures of motorcycles or cars or buses everytime I accidentally click on one of their links?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-n-d1ApBTFw
There's also the amusing Spurious Correlations site with several examples of convincing looking correlations
The p-value tells researchers that there's something interesting going on between data sets and further exploration is likely warranted to reveal the true underlying relationship. It's not a proof of a fabricated conclusion. "The golden way to test a causal relation is an appropriately designed experiment, where only the suspected "cause" is varied and the "effect" is observed."
1. https://www.researchgate.net/post/If_correlation_doesnt_impl...
Not too sure what to make of this...
a) there are more storks in rural areas
b) people who live in rural areas tend to have more children.
For example, if you have a friend who hates chi-squared tests, instead teach them correspondence analysis.
A year later you can tell them they already know how to do a chi-squared test. To be fair, this latter comment depends a bit on how the library is implemented, and possibly it only does correspondence analysis while not giving you direct access to a way to generate p-values. Some libraries will have a function that you can call that runs simulations and then provides the p-values.
Many of these statistical techniques are an obligation only if you have to sample from a space and you have to somehow determine whether the sample is representative. If you presuppose that your sample is representative, then you move into a parallel world of statistics. An example would be a thermometer. If you sample it at 10:00 00 and again at 10:00 01, certainly you would expect both to be the same? If it's not the same or a close value I would rather say that the thermometer is broken, not that your within group variation for the minute 10:00 is high...
---
Abstract
Objectives To determine whether parachutes are effective in preventing major trauma related to gravitational challenge.
Design Systematic review of randomised controlled trials.
Data sources: Medline, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases; appropriate internet sites and citation lists.
Study selection: Studies showing the effects of using a parachute during free fall.
Main outcome measure Death or major trauma, defined as an injury severity score > 15.
Results We were unable to identify any randomised controlled trials of parachute intervention.
Conclusions As with many interventions intended to prevent ill health, the effectiveness of parachutes has not been subjected to rigorous evaluation by using randomised controlled trials. Advocates of evidence based medicine have criticised the adoption of interventions evaluated by using only observational data. We think that everyone might benefit if the most radical protagonists of evidence based medicine organised and participated in a double blind, randomised, placebo controlled, crossover trial of the parachute.
“We publish a special two-week issue of The BMJ over Christmas and New Year. We are pleased to consider all kinds of articles, including reports of original research, for this issue.
The soul of the Christmas issue is originality. We don’t want to publish anything that resembles anything we’ve published before. While we welcome light-hearted fare and satire, we do not publish spoofs, hoaxes, or fabricated studies.”
Examples of BMJ ‘Christmas’ articles at https://sciencemadeeasy.kinja.com/top-10-bmj-christmas-paper..., https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/the-best-of-the-br...
This article studies the number of storks in a country overall.
So it's not really related. I'd say total storks in a country and total births in a country are more related to the size of the country.
You can alter the right-hand side, but then you have to stop saying 'almost certain' because everyone assumes that means a measure one set.
So, for instance, you might believe that P(causation | correlation) = 0.8 across all human chosen distributions. You might well be right since adversarial distributions are so rarely chosen, i.e. there is a meta-effect where humans are choosing interesting queries in the first place.
There's no evidence that storks deliver babies vs storks being born alongside babies, or babies creating storks, or that storks impregnate mothers.